By Akpo Mudiaga-Odje

The recurring word in the judgment here is the voter or his vote as the major determinant of the victory of the candidate. If that is true, which it is, why then is the voter not legally capable of ventilating such issues himself before a court of law in Nigeria?

“ What Will Happen To The Voter’s “One Man One Vote” When A Candidate And His Political Party Are Compromised?

This is the climax of the legal injustice a voter will eventually suffer under the Section 144 of the Electoral Act. In most cases, the candidate who contested for Governorship elections, subsequently accepts a commissioner slot in the new arrangement and his political party will say it’s a family affair.

So when these only two persons know to law as authorized to file election petitions are compromised, what then happens to the voter and his now miserable “one man one vote”?

This is the hub of the matter

“ Egolum Vs. Obasanjo 1999 5 SCNJ 92 Provided the Avenue to enlarge the Nigerian voter’s Locus Standi. In the above case, Chief Chuba Egolum almost tried to extend the law to authorize a voter to also file an election petition. He relied on form TF 002 which spoke of “person who voted (or had a right to vote as the case may be) to file a petition to challenge electoral malpractices.”

Whilst this argument was captivating to the court of Appeal, (per Oguntade JCA as he then was) the apex court declined to so hold.

Accordingly, the apex court speaking through the articulate Ogundare JSC of blessed memory held inter alia at page 112 lines 30_40 that: “Form TF.002 appears to be inn conflict with section 50 (1) of the Decree in that it enlarges the scope of the persons entitled to present a petition when it speaks of “who voted (or had a right to vote, as the case may be).” It is this that must have misled Oguntade, JCA., into holding the view I quoted earlier in this judgment.

Surely section 50 (1) does not confer on a voter a right to present a petition. In so far, therefore, as Form TF.002 is in conflict with section 50 (1) of the Decree, it is invalid”. This remains the position of the law as at today.

“ The Ghanaian Constitutional Example Of “One Man One Vote” Recommended.

Indeed, the search for a country or reference point where one man one vote is legally enforceable is situated by God’s grace within Africa. We need not to go too far as to the United States or Europe any longer to get examples of best practices in electoral reforms and even good governance.  Thank God for South Africa and Ghana!

Consequently, the Ghanaian Constitution has given any “Ghanaian Citizen” not even a registered voter or a person whose name is on the voter’s register and/or even a tax paying Ghanaian, but “any Ghanaian Citizen” is given the right to file a petition before the Supreme Court of Ghana within 21 days (after results of the Presidential elections have been announced) to challenge any acts of electoral irregularity arising therefrom.

This is the legalized “one man one vote” in deed and in action.  For the sake of completeness, Section 64 of the Constitution of Ghana 1992 provides that: _ 64 (1) The validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty_one days after the declaration of the result of the election in respect of which the petition is presented.

It should be noted that this right is entrenched in the Ghanaian Constitution and not merely in an unwieldy Electoral Act as in the Nigeria situation.

“Conclusion.

Accordingly, we recommend the Ghanaian approach to the National Assembly and President Goodluck Jonathan, if truly they believe in upholding the inspirational doctrine of “one man one vote” as divinely ordered for the forthcoming elections.

However, until that is done, the sobriquet of “one man one vote” in Nigeria will remain but a fleeting illusion devoid of any legal or constitutional support, and severely tainted by political shenanigans.